question almost is agitated between the mother country and the colonies in pub lick. 603 It is probable that the "like question" referred to was the debate in the House of Lords on the Massachusetts combined act of general pardon and indemnity 804 The Massachusetts men, who as we have seen, displayed great ingenuity in keeping a cause circulating in the provincial courts to the exhaustion of appellants' purses, developed with great boldness a common form of legislative intervention in judicial proceedings. By the device of a "resolve" the General Court granted to litigants upon application both reviews and appeals. Governor Shirley, in 1748, recommended that the power of granting new trials as of grace should be conferred on the courts, 605 but this was ignored, and the legislature continued its practice. 606 Since this was not an assumption of appellate jurisdiction, these resolves did not run counter to the tenor of the royal instructions, which sought to exclude the legislature from such exercise of authority. 607 The Massachusetts practice was emulated in New Hampshire, where the General Assembly granted appeals, rehearings, and reviews with fair frequency 608 and in one case a judgment of the Superior Court of Judicature was even declared void. 609 There was, however, less astuteness in the northern province, for the legislature chose the form of "acts" rather than "resolves," as in Massachusetts, and consequently the risk of royal disallowance was present. Indeed, on two occasions such disallowances took place. 010 It does not appear that the Lords Committee regarded any principle to have been involved, and no question of a declaration of nullity was raised. The record on this side of the water —a far different thing from that in the Privy Council office—indicates that in face of a well-defined imperial policy against legislative tampering with provincial judicature or with known pro- 603 Eyre to Life, April 22, 1769 (Ingersoll MSS [New Haven Col. Hist. Soc.]). 604 See supra, p. 631. 606 108 MS Mass. Archives (Speeches, Messages, etc., 1702-54), 267. 606 See 16 Acts and Res. Vrov. Mass. Bay, 80, 95, 99, 283, 390, 453, 455, 642, 750 (all reviews); 17 ibid., 97, 544 (appeals), 151, 203, 252, 360, 364, 440, 541 (reviews); 18 ibid., 158, 269, 283, 438, 788 (appeals), 40, 89, 105, 515, 679, 757 (reviews). In part the legislature acted judicially to avoid appeals; see Bowdoin- Temple Papers, 9 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (6th ser.), 174. 007 See I Labaree, Royal Instructions, #446. 608 See 2 Laws of N.H., 353, 540, 543, 561, 720; 3 ibid., 70, 121, 123, 146, 147, 237, 308, 356, 406; 5 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prop. N.H., 165, 392, 578, 581, 658, 665, 667; 6 ibid., 246, 250, 525, 840; 7 ibid., 221, 238, 303, 317, 351. 009 2 Laws of N.H., 706. 610 An Act to Enable Charles Banfill and Others to Revive a Suit at Law, with Richard Wybird, Esq. (3 Laws of N.H., 237) was disallowed in July, 1764 (4 APC, Col, #560). An Act to Enable Daniel Merrill, John Hale, and Llenry Hale, Jr., to Review and Prosecute in the Course of Law Certain Actions Wherein They Were Defendants and Were Defaulted by Mistake (3 Laws of N.H., 406) was disallowed in August, 1768 (5 APC, Col., #82; 7 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 199—200).